Opinion
NO. 12-17-00232-CV
08-31-2017
IN RE: R.C.H., A CHILD, RELATOR
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mia Baughman, Relator, filed this original proceeding in which she complains of the trial court's denial of her motion to transfer venue. We deny the petition.
On July 28, 2017, this Court notified Relator that the petition for writ of mandamus failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7(a)(2). On August 8, we again notified Relator of the petition's failure to comply with Rule 52.7(a)(2), and further notified Relator that the petition would be referred to the Court for dismissal, unless the required record was filed on or before August 15. The time for complying with this Court's notice has passed, and Relator has neither filed a record in compliance with Rule 52.7(a)(2) or otherwise responded to this Court's notice.
A relator must file, with the petition, "a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding, including any exhibits offered in evidence, or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained." TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(2); see TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k). In this case, Relator failed to provide the record required by Rule 52.7(a)(2); thus, we are unable to determine that Relator is entitled to mandamus relief. See In re Carrea , No. 12-16-00294-CV, 2016 WL 6876500 (Tex. App.—Tyler Nov. 22, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). For this reason, we deny Relator's petition for writ of mandamus. Opinion delivered August 31, 2017.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
(PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT
MIA BAUGHMAN, Relator V. HON. JEFF FLETCHER, Respondent
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by MIA BAUGHMAN; who is the relator in Cause No. 2015-600, pending on the docket of the 402nd Judicial District Court of Wood County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on July 28, 2017, and the same having been duly considered, it is the opinion of this Court that a writ should not issue, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby denied.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.